ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 20 July 2017
Edited by:
José Jesús Gázquez,
University of Almería, Spain
Reviewed by:
Juan Luis Castejon,
University of Alicante, Spain
Faye Antoniou,
National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens, Greece
*Correspondence:
Estrella Fernández
fernandezestrella@uniovi.es
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 31 January 2017
Accepted: 06 July 2017
Published: 20 July 2017
Citation:
Fernández E, García T,
Arias-Gundín O, Vázquez A and
Rodríguez C (2017) Identifying Gifted
Children: Congruence among
Different IQ Measures.
Front. Psychol. 8:1239.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01239
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01239
Identifying Gifted Children:
Congruence among Different IQ
Measures
Estrella Fernández 1*, Trinidad García 1 , Olga Arias-Gundín 2 , Almudena Vázquez 3 and
Celestino Rodríguez 1
1
Faculty of Psychology, Oviedo University, Oviedo, Spain, 2 Department of Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy, Faculty of
Education, León University, León, Spain, 3 Asunción León-Primary and Secondary School, León, Spain
This study has two main aims: (1) analysing the relationship between intellectual
capacities and levels of creativity in a sample of Spanish students from the third and
sixth grades; and (2) examining the discrimination capacities and degree of congruence
among different tests of intellectual ability that are commonly used to identify high-
ability students. The study sample comprised 236 primary school students. Participants
completed different tests of intellectual ability, which were based on both fluid and
crystallized intelligence, as well as creativity. Results indicated that it is advisable to use
varying tests in the assessment process, and a complementary measure (i.e., creativity)
in order to create a multi-criteria means of detection that can more efficiently distinguish
this population of students.
Keywords: intellectual ability, creativity, primary school, high ability, assessment methods
INTRODUCTION
Identifying students with higher abilities has become a subject of great interest for researchers,
education administrators, teachers and families alike. However, it is also a controversial issue
because there is still no agreement on which variables must be taken into account to determine
whether a student has higher abilities, or how these variables should be measured in these cases.
The different conceptualizations of higher intellectual abilities, either from educational, socio-
political or psychometric perspectives, have traditionally tried to identify those children who are
exceptional (Pfeiffer, 2015). One of the models that has received more attention is the Three-
Ring Conception of Giftedness by Renzulli (1978). This model has helped establish some of the
general criteria being used to classify students with higher abilities today. This author defined high
intellectual ability as a consistent interaction between three basic human traits that characterize
high-ability people: (a) above-average general intelligence; (b) creativity (defined as “that cluster of
traits that encompasses curiosity, originality, ingenuity, and a willingness to challenge convention
and tradition”; and (c) task commitment (which “represents a non-intellective cluster of traits
found consistently in creative and productive individuals, including perseverance, determination,
will power or positive energy”) (Renzulli, 2012). This model has been used as a reference in Spanish
schools to determine which students are gifted and which students are not gifted. In which the
creativity acquiring, at a practical level, great protagonism, above-average commitment. Moreover,
some studies show that gifted learners are more creative than average learners, for example, when
evaluating divergent thinking or amount of original ideas (Ferrando et al., 2008; Jauk et al., 2013).
1 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
However, this is not the only model to be considered. Other
authors such as Jeltova and Grigorenko (2005), Calero et al.
(2007), and Pfeiffer (2012) consider high-ability children as those
who demonstrate a higher likelihood of attaining significant
achievements in culturally valued domains. These authors
take into account a student’s intellectual abilities, while also
emphasizing the relevance of certain personality traits and the
role of stimulating social environments that can effectively favor
an individual’s learning in specific fields. However, regardless
of the theoretical model, there is agreement today that higher
intellectual ability is a multi-dimensional construct, and that
more human and material resources are needed to identify this
often-latent potential in order to provide appropriate educational
support to such students (Tourón et al., 1998; Pfeiffer, 2015).
It is therefore fundamental that schools and professionals are
provided with the right tools to identify high-ability students as
early as possible (Reis and Renzulli, 2010).
Traditionally, intellectual ability was the central variable
used to discriminate high-ability individuals from the average
population. Nowadays, however, various authors agree that
intellectual quotient (IQ) cannot be used as a single variable in
the conceptualization of high abilities (Calero and García-Martín,
2011; Pfeiffer, 2015). For example, as discussed by Wellisch and
Brown (2012) in their study, some authors suggest that the most
reliable information would be based on the perception of teachers
and families. Nevertheless, IQ remains an important factor to be
assessed and, when used in conjunction with other variables, it
can provide essential information concerning the identification
of students with exceptional abilities (Sternberg, 2010; Renzulli
and Gaesser, 2015). Moreover, many educational policies
establish that, in order to implement effective identification and
intervention processes, a non-negotiable criterion is to evaluate
the student’s intellectual capacity by means of standardized tests
(Wet and Gubbins, 2011). Although other criteria may be used,
there are currently authors who consider that these criteria
cannot equal the objectivity and reliability of IQ measurements
and tasks, especially for students with learning difficulties (Lovett
and Lewandowski, 2006). This broader approach to assessment
is important, since the responsibility of detecting high-ability
students often falls to schools, which commonly only pay
attention to the more traditional signals related to high-ability,
such as high levels of academic achievement. Evaluation and
intervention recommendations come from teachers in most cases
(Renzulli and Gaesser, 2015); however, most teachers do not have
a vast knowledge in the identification of high-ability students.
This may lead to mistakes during the assessment process (Tourón
et al., 2006; Reis and Renzulli, 2010) and under-identification
of some students, especially those from lower socio-economic
backgrounds (Moon and Brighton, 2008; Baker, 2011; Freeman,
2011; Wellisch and Brown, 2012), and/or those who have socio-
emotional problems and may appear to have low levels of
competence in basic learning processes (emulating students with
learning difficulties) (Silverman, 2009; Wellisch and Brown,
2012).
Therefore, although the exclusive use of standardized tests to
assess intellectual ability has its detractors (Pfeiffer, 2012) and
these tests are not the only measures available nowadays, the fact
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
remains that standardized tests have been accepted as reliable
measures of identifying students with higher abilities to date
(Lovett and Lewandowski, 2006; Lovett and Sparks, 2011; Erwin
and Worrell, 2012) and as Carman (2013) suggests “no matter
how often researchers suggest that an IQ score is not the only way
of determining giftedness, it is still the most common method
of identifying gifted participants for research, either alone or in
combination with other criteria.” At a practical level, in Spain the
information obtained from standardized tests is the first criterion
used to determine if a student may have higher abilities, and is
essential for continuation of the evaluation process. This measure
is used as a baseline analysis of the students’ capacities and offers
a starting point for the detection of higher intellectual abilities
(Renzulli, 2012; Wellisch and Brown, 2012).
Accepting this condition as necessary, a new problem arises
concerning which standardized tests to choose and the degree of
congruence required between different measures. This difficulty
is associated, in part, with the definition of intelligence itself
and with the variables that are considered relevant to measure
this construct (e.g., abstract reasoning, vocabulary, numerical
knowledge). Standardized tests designed to evaluate the IQ are
based on different conceptualizations of intelligence and this is
an important aspect to consider when deciding which measure
should be used. Some authors recommend the use of non-
verbal tests to avoid cultural and linguistic biases (Naglieri and
Ford, 2003) such as the Factor “g” test (Cattell and Cattell,
1994) or “Matrices” (Sánchez-Sánchez et al., 2015), both of
which are considered good estimators of fluid intelligence
and general intellectual ability (or “g” factor). Other authors,
in order to provide a more contextual perspective to the
conceptualization of the intelligence, give greater weight to the
evaluation of psychological variables relevant to the execution of
school tasks, thus estimating intellectual ability by focusing on
school competences rather than on purely intellectual capacities
(Thurstone and Thurstone, 2005). Finally, some authors state
that appropriate testing should take the form of batteries of tests
that also collect information on a wide range of variables that,
in the last decades, have demonstrated they are good indicators
of intelligence, such as students’ verbal competence, together
with components such as working memory, processing speed,
comprehension, analytical capacity, and so forth (Sternberg,
2010; Pierson et al., 2012).
At this point it is worth noting the current interest in the
research community in hierarchical models of intelligence and
their tests, and specifically in the Cattell–Horn–Carroll Theory
of Cognitive Abilities (CHC) (McGrew, 2005). This theory
establishes three strata in the conceptualization of intelligence:
stratum III – general or global intelligence; stratum II (broad) –
10 general intelligence abilities which are the main focus of
interest in the assessment of intellectual ability and are fluid
and crystallized intelligence, short-term or immediate memory,
long-term memory storage and retrieval, processing speed,
quantitative reasoning, reacting or decision making speed, visual
processing, auditory processing, reading ability, and writing
ability; and stratum I (narrow) – made up of more specific
components such as inductive processes, vocabulary, visual
memory, spatial relations, and general sequential reasoning,
2 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
and which would conform to the general cognitive factors of
stratum II.
Although this theory is gradually having an impact on the
evaluation and identification of higher ability students at the
international level (Pfeiffer, 2015), and new assessment tools are
being designed or adapted based on this model (e.g., WISC-V;
Wechsler, 2014), at a practical level, at least in Spain, it has not
yet become established as a specific assessment protocol adjusted
to this perspective. Therefore, both the detection model and the
tests used ultimately depend on the experience and knowledge of
the professionals in charge of the evaluation, and the assessment
measures available in each case.
The present study had two objectives. First, following
Renzulli’s (1978) model, it aimed to describe intellectual
capacities and creativity levels of a sample of primary school
students from northern Spain, with the aim of detecting and
analysing potential cases of high ability where IQ is 130 or
above – or two typical deviations above the average. Students
from grades 3 and 6 were chosen as representative of this stage,
and two variables of measures, intellectual capacity and creativity,
were measured. Second, taking into account that depending on
the tests used the students identified as gifted children may
be different, this study aimed to establish the congruence and
efficacies of different types of intellectual ability measures in
order to determine if they concur, with respect to distinguishing
students with higher abilities from average students. In schools
it is common to use only a test of intellectual capacity in the
processes of identification. Therefore, it is necessary to determine
if these results in incorrect identification, either by over- or
under-identification, due to inconsistencies between different
type tests results.
In this analysis, although they are important variables
in Renzulli’s (1978) model, task involvement and academic
performance are not included as discriminating criteria because
previous literature suggests that many students with high ability
fail in the academic environment due to related factors, such
as lack of motivation, and poor recognition by teachers of their
real educational needs, both of which can also arise due to
“teacher-bias” (Reis and Renzulli, 2004, 2009).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
A sample of 236 primary school students from northern Spain
took part in this study. The students were recruited from the
third grade (n = 117; 49.6%) and the sixth grade (n = 119;
50.4%). Their ages ranged from 8 to 13 years (M = 9.96;
SD = 1.65). The ratio of males to females in the total sample
was not ideal (χ2 = 4.90; p =0.027). There were no statistically
significant differences in the percentage of students in the
different grades (p = 0.90). The ages of the third grade students
ranged from 9 to 10 years (M = 8.38; SD = 0.51), with 63
(53.8%) of the sample being female, and 54 (46.2%) being
male. There were no statistically significant differences regarding
gender distribution (p = 0.405). In the case of the sixth grade
students, their ages ranged from 11 to 13 years (M = 11.50;
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
SD = 0.55), with 47 (39.5%) being female and 72 (60.5%) being
male. There were statistically significant differences between
the proportion of boys and girls in this group (χ2 = 5.25;
p = 0.022).
Measures
The following instruments were administered:
Intellectual Abilities
Three measures traditionally used in the assessment of
intelligence were used. The Test of Educational Aptitudes
(TEA-1) is a test of academic competences based on a selection
of the most relevant factors from the “Primary Mental Abilities”
by Thurstone (1938). The Battery of Differential and General
Skills (Badyg) is consistent with the Cattell–Horn–Carroll
theory (CHC) as the test is based on a hierarchical model of
intelligence with three different levels. Lastly, the Factor “g” test
is a non-verbal test which provides a measure of fluid intelligence
(Gf) and general intellectual ability, or g factor. Due to the age
of the students, two different versions of the Badyg were used.
Specifically, students in grade 3 completed the Badyg-2, while
students in grade 6 completed the Badyg-3. A more detailed
description of these tests follows.
Test of Educational Aptitudes (adapted to Spanish by
Department I+D of TEA Editions, S.A.) (Thurstone and
Thurstone, 2005) test provides an estimation of general
intelligence and its factors. It consists of five parts that measure
three different components or abilities (i.e., factors): verbal
(different words and vocabulary), numerical (calculation), and
reasoning (drawing and series). It also offers the possibility to
measure verbal and non-verbal abilities separately. It is available
in three different versions for different age groups. The TEA-
1 version was used in the present study and was administered
according to the age range of the sample. Reliability coefficients
by mean of Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.61 and 0.95 for
the different subtests, with an alpha of 0.89 for the full scale. The
manual reports adequate internal validity, although correlations
between different variables are mostly low to moderate. High
correlations are only reported between verbal reasoning and
academic aptitude (r = 0.89), and between academic aptitude and
numerical reasoning (r = 0.85).
Battery of Differential and General Skills (Badyg) (Yuste
et al., 2005) provides an estimation of IQ and presents
different versions for different age groups. Students in sixth
grade completed the Badyg-E3, which consists of six subtests:
(1) analog relations (verbal intelligence), (2) numerical series
(inductive reasoning), (3) matrices (fluid intelligence), (4)
sentence completion (inductive reasoning), (5) numerical
problems (verbal intelligence), and (6) figure matching (visual
processing). An overall full-scale IQ index score is also provided.
Students in third grade completed the Badyg-E2. It is made up
of the same subtests as the Badyg-E3 but varies in difficulty level
and application time. Cronbach’s alpha was from 0.77 to 0.84 for
the different subtests, and 0.95 for the full scale. The Cronbach’s
alpha obtained in the present study, for the full scale, was 0.72.
While there are more powerful assessment tools to evaluate
this component and with better psychometric properties, this
3 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
instrument was chosen for the following reasons: (a) it can be
used to predict academic performance in a reliable way; (b) it has
been used in previous studies which demonstrated a relationship
between intellectual ability and academic performance; and (c)
factorial analysis showed high correlations between the different
sub-scales that compose the Badyg battery. Criterion validity was
moderate to high (Pearson’s r from 0.39 to 0.58). This scale also
shows a well-adjusted factorial structure making it possible to
carry out additional broad-scoped comparisons (e.g., Sabiston
et al., 2013).
The Factor “g” test (Cattell and Cattell, 1994 – adapted
to Spanish by Associated Specialized Technicians) evaluates
intelligence conceived as a general mental ability. It uses non-
verbal tasks to eliminate the influence of those abilities that
have been acquired through education, such as vocabulary or
numerical knowledge. This test has three versions, each with
different difficulty levels. The selection of the level depends upon
the age of the participant. Level 2 (suitable for children from 8 to
14 years) was used in the present study. It includes four subtests:
series, classification, conditions, and matrices. Individual scores
are combined to obtain a global IQ score. The participant is
asked to establish logical relationships between abstract figures
and forms.
Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.76 and 0.85 for the
different subtests (alpha = 0.86 for the full scale), with
a complementary index adequate stability of 2.59 (typical
measurement errors). Criterion validity was high, finding
statistically significant correlations between the different sub-
scales and the Test of Educational Aptitudes-TEA 1 and 2
(Pearson’s r from 0.53 to 0.81; p < 0.001).
Creativity
The Creative Intelligence Test (CREA) (Corbalán et al., 2003)
presents participants with an image (commonly representing a
social scene) and they have a limited time frame to formulate all
the questions that the situation evokes in them. Version C, which
is aimed at children, was used. In addition to providing a global
measure of creativity, it offers the possibility to analyze the results
qualitatively. Three levels of creativity can be established based on
percentages (low = below the 25th percentile; medium = 26th–
74th percentiles; and high = 75th percentile and above).
Procedure
Students were recruited from different schools in Northern Spain.
Once the schools were selected, principals and head teachers of
the participating schools were contacted. They were informed
about the aims of the study, its voluntary nature and anonymity,
and the ethical treatment of the data recorded. The study was
conducted in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World
Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki), which reflects
the ethical principles for research involving humans (Williams,
2008). Informed consent from families was also obtained.
Researchers who were trained in psychology administered the
above tests, all of which were conducted using counter-balanced
methodology over the course of the testing, in three different
testing sessions. Students with severe learning difficulties or
special educational needs were excluded from the analyses.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
Data Analysis
A descriptive design was used. Due to the objectives of this
study, statistical analyses were performed in different steps. First,
the sample was described in terms of age, gender, IQ (based
on the three measures of intelligence previously described), and
creativity. This analysis was conducted separately for students
in grade 3 and 6, as different versions of the Badyg were
used. The normality of the dependent variables (i.e., global
scores in the CREA, Badyg, TEA-1, and Factor “g” test) was
analyzed, paying special attention to skewness and kurtosis
values. Following Finney and Di Stefano’s (2006) criterion, the
adequacy of these values was demonstrated (Table 1). Secondly,
to estimate the correspondence between the different measures of
intellectual ability, Pearson correlation between global IQ scores
were conducted.
Additionally, student’s t-test was also performed to analyze
within-subject differences in IQ estimated with the different
tests. To analyze the discriminatory capacity of each test in the
detection of students with high abilities, the absolute frequency
of students with an IQ of 130 or higher (as determined by the
different tests) was then calculated. The congruence among the
three intelligence tests was estimated by recording the number
of students who were found to have an IQ of 130 or above in all
the tests. Congruence between pairs of tests in the detection of
high-ability students was also established. Although considering
an IQ of 130 or above – or two typical deviations above the
average – seems to be an arbitrary criterion, in both research and
educational practice this criterion is still used, in most cases, as a
cut-off point to determine which students have higher intellectual
abilities (Moon and Brighton, 2008; Carman, 2013; Guignard
et al., 2016; Peyre et al., 2016).
RESULTS
Intellectual IQ Results of the Students
and Correspondence between Measures
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the sample, while Table 2
presents correlations between IQ scores measured using the
different tests of intellectual ability described. Analyses for
students in grade 3 and 6 are presented separately.
Third Grade Students
As Table 1 shows, 59% of the students in grade 3 had a
medium level of creativity, while only 19% reached high levels of
creativity. However, the mean in this variable suggests low levels
of creativity in general (values in this variable can range from 0
to 25).
Results from the intelligence tests administered placed the
intellectual ability of the group around the average, regardless
of the test used. Scores were slightly higher in the case of the
Factor “g” test (i.e., fluid intelligence). Standard deviations were
high, suggesting the presence of large inter-subject variability. IQ
values ranged from 68 to 149 points in the case of the Factor
“g” test, between 65 and 135 in the TEA-1, and between 64
and 139 in the Badyg-2. The correlations between the various
measures of intellectual ability were positive and statistically
4 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al. Identifying Gifted Children

TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics for the sample (third and sixth grade students).

Third grade students (N = 117) Sixth grade students (N = 119)

M SD M SD

CREA-Q Low n = 29 (24.8%) Low n = 5 (4.2%)

Medium n = 69 (59%) Medium n = 66 (55.5%)
High n = 19 (16.2%) High n = 48 (40.3%)
CREA-RS 7.94 3.81 10.85 3.60
Factor g test 109.28 15.90 94.27 20.87
BADYG 102.03 16.96 99.94 16.71
TEA-1 101.79 12.94 104.35 16.17

CREA-Q, CREA qualitative: low, medium, and high creativity; CREA-RS, CREA raw score; n, number of students by level; M, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation.

TABLE 2 | Bivariate correlations between IQ scores in the different tests (third and sixth grade students).

Third grade students (N = 117) Sixth grade students (N = 119)

Factor g test Badyg-2 TEA-1 Factor g test Badyg-3 TEA-1

Factor g test 0.605∗ 0.373∗ Factor g test 0.159 0.031

Badyg-2 0.502∗ Badyg-3 0.746∗
TEA-1 TEA-1
∗p < 0.001.

significant between all pairs of tests (see Table 2). Statistically
significant differences between IQ scores estimated with Factor
“g” test and Badyg-2 (t = 5.369; p < 0.001), and between Factor
“g” test and TEA-1 (t = 4.964; p < 0.001) were found, but not
between the Badyg-2 and TEA-1 (p = 0.866). Thus, statistically
significant differences were found when the crystallized and fluid
intelligence measures were compared, with students’ IQ scores
being higher when using the latter measure.
Sixth Grade Students
Results show that students in this group obtained higher scores
in CREA than the younger students. However, the scores varied
from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 20 in this variable.
Again, the proportion of students with medium creativity was
greater than the proportion of students with low and high
creativity. However, the percentage of students with high levels
of creativity was greater than in the third grade students group
(see Table 1).
Regarding the variable IQ, sixth grade students showed
average levels of intelligence, although a large within-subject
variability was observed. IQ scores ranged from 30 to 139 points
when the Factor “g” test was used, from 55 to 136 in the case of the
Badyg-3, and from 65 to 135 when the TEA-1 was administered.
Correlations between the different measures were positive, but
only statistically significant when using the Badyg-3 and TEA-
1 (see Table 2). At a within-subject level, statistically significant
differences in IQ scores were observed when the Factor “g” test
and Badyg-3 were compared (t = −2.529; p = 0.013), as well as
between the Factor “g” test and TEA-1 (t = −4.237; p < 0.001),
and between the Badyg-3 and TEA-1 (t = −4.092; p < 0.001).
Students in grade 6 obtained better results in the TEA-1 than in
the other tests.
Discriminatory Values of the Measures in
the Detection of Students with High
Abilities, and the Intellectual Measures of
the Students Detected
To detect students that could be considered high-ability and
determine the congruence between the tests, a selection of cases
in which a student scored 130 or above in the different IQ
tests was made. Results are presented according to school grade
(Tables 3, 4).
Third Grade Students
None of the students in this group obtained an IQ score
of 130 or above in all three of the tests. However, scores
from the Factor “g” test and Badyg-2 converged in two cases.
With respect to the other possible paired-comparisons of the
tests, there were no instances of converging results (Table 3).
These students showed a medium-to-high percentile in the
creativity test and a mean IQ of 139 points in the Factor
“g” test, with values ranging from 132 to 146 points. They
also exhibited a mean of 137.5 points in the Badyg-2, with
values between 136 and 139. Regarding IQ assessed by the
TEA-1, values were close to 130, ranging from 119 to 128
points.
For students who had an IQ of 130 or greater in only one of
the tests, it can be observed that the Factor “g” test identified
the highest number of students who met this criterion (13
students), while the TEA-1 was the most restrictive test with
only one student identified. The Badyg-2, however, detected
six students who met the above-mentioned criterion. It should
be noted that, in the majority of cases, students identified
as having high-abilities showed a medium level of creativity.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239

Fernández et al. Identifying Gifted Children

TABLE 3 | Descriptive statistic of participants with an IQ equal or above 130 in the different tests (third grade students).

Age Gender CREA-Q CREA-RS Factor g test Badyg-2 TEA 1

M (SD) M/F Low Medium High M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Convergence between Factor g test and Badyg-2 (n = 2)

8.5 (0.707) 1M/1F – n = 1 (50%) n = 1 (50%) 10.501 (2.242) 139 (9.898) 137.5 (2.123) 125.5 (6.363)
IQ above or equal to 130 in Factor g test (n = 13)

8.38 (0.506) 7M/6F n = 2 (15.4%) n = 10 (76.9%) n = 1 (7.7%) 8.461 (2.781) 136.232 (6.300) 116.846 (14.512) 107.676 (14.332)
IQ above or equal to 130 in Badyg-2 (n = 6)

8.667 (0.516) 3M/3F n = 1 (16.7%) n = 4 (66.6%) n = 1 (16.7%) 8.667 (3.265) 128 (1.714) 132 (3.982) 118.16 (7.935)
IQ above or equal to 130 in TEA 1 (n = 1)

9 1F – n = 1 (100%) – 8 122 127 135

M/F, male/female; CREA-Q, CREA qualitative: low, medium, and high creativity; CREA-RS, CREA raw score; M, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation.

TABLE 4 | Descriptive statistic of participants with an IQ equal or above 130 in the different tests (sixth grade students).

Age Gender CREA-Q CREA-RS Factor g test Badyg-3 TEA-1

M (SD) M/F Low Medium High M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Convergence between Factor g test and TEA 1 (n = 1)

12 1M – – n = 1 (100%) 19 139 127 135

IQ above or equal to 130 in Factor g test (n = 4)

11.5 (0.577) 2M/2F – n = 1 (25%) n = 3 (75%) 14.750 (3.862) 132.750 (4.193) 117.250 (7.500) 110.250 (17.967)
IQ above or equal to 130 in Badyg-3 (n = 1)

12 1F – n = 1 (100%) – 9 122 136 119

IQ above or equal to 130 in TEA 1 (n = 6)

11.5 (0.547) 4M/2F – n = 3 (50%) n = 3 (50%) 12.833 (3.656) 101 (22.172) 116.500 (9.995) 135

M/F, male/female; CREA-C, CREA qualitative: low, medium, and high creativity; CREA-RS, CREA raw score; M, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation.

Finally, IQ scores ranged between 130 and 149 points when
measured by the Factor “g” test, and between 130 and 139 in
the case of the Badyg-2. A unique value of 135 was found in the
TEA-1.
Sixth Grade Students
Again, none of the students met the criteria of having an IQ
equal or above 130 points in all three of the tests. Regarding
the convergence between pairs of tests, the Factor “g” test and
the TEA-1 converged, but only in a single case. The results of
this student can be seen in Table 4. He showed a high level of
creativity and his IQ was close to 130 when the Badyg-3 was
administered.
In relation to students scoring 130 or above in each of
the tests, results indicated that the TEA-1 was the test that
identified the greatest number of students that met this criterion
followed by the Factor “g” test. The Badyg-3 was the most
restrictive test in this sense, as none of the students showed
an IQ score equal to or higher than 130 in this test. Table 4
presents the results corresponding to each group. In this
case, 50% of the children identified as high-ability students
in the different tests displayed a high level of creativity.
This pattern was different from that found in the group
of third grade students, where only 2 out of 20 (10%) of
the students identified as having high-abilities showed high
levels in this variable. IQ values ranged from 130 to 139
in the case of the students identified by the Factor “g” test,
whereas all the students identified by the TEA-1 showed an
IQ of 135. The student identified by the Badyg-3 had an IQ
of 136.
In summary, out of the total of 236 students, 31
students (20 from third grade and 11 from sixth grade)
were identified as having an IQ equal to or greater
than 130, considering the different tests separately. This
corresponds to 13.13% of the sample. There were only
three cases in which two tests produced converging results,
which equates to only 1.27% of all students evaluated. No
convergence of results was found among the three measures of
intelligence.
DISCUSSION
This study has two main objectives: analysing the relationship
between intellectual capacities of a group of third and sixth grade
students from Northern Spain; and to analyze the discriminatory
value and congruence between different tests of intelligence
traditionally used in the identification of high-ability students.
In general, results point to the need to use different tests in
the identification process, as well as to include complementary
measures (i.e., creativity) to create a multi-criterial system for

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239

Fernández et al.
the detection of students who fall into this category (Renzulli,
2012).
Intellectual Capacities Results of the
Students and Congruence among
Measures
In general, results indicated that both third and sixth grade
students showed an average intellectual ability (close to 100 in
most of the cases). Regarding congruence among the different
intelligence measures used, it is important to note that all
the tests administered to third grade students showed positive
and significant correlations to one another. A moderate to
high association between the Factor “g” test and the tests of
educational and intellectual aptitudes, more related to academic
performance (TEA-1 and Badyg), was found. However, for
sixth grade students, significant correlations were only found
between the Badyg-3 and TEA-1 (both assess general intelligence
through those abilities related to learning and academic
performance – or crystallized intelligence). Thus, when the
same tests were administered to older students, the correlation
between crystallized intelligence measures increased, while the
association between crystallized and fluid intelligence measures
decreased, or even disappeared. These results are consistent
with those reported by Pérez and González (2007), who noted
that the subscales with a greater cultural basis (and containing
more elements of the school curriculum) functioned differently
according to age, and showed more congruence as children grow
up (and presumably as their knowledge increases).
In addition, regarding the accuracy of the tests detecting
high-ability students, it should be noted that the congruence
among the various measures examined was disturbingly low.
In this sense, none of the students met the criterion of
showing an IQ equal to or above 130 in all of the three
measures that were administered in a concurrently. On the other
hand, considering the different tests separately, 13.13% of the
total sample corresponds with students who were identified as
having an IQ equal to or greater than 130, when theoretical
percentage expectation would be around 2%. Differences in
the estimations provided by the different tests for a same
student were high. This may point to important constraints
regarding the validity of the tests that are being currently being
used.
It could thus be assumed that, at earlier stages of development,
the different types of intelligence tests can converge, with respect
to findings. However, this convergence tends to decrease with
age, and congruence only stays present in cases in which
those abilities have been facilitated and boosted by on-going
learning. These findings have some implications for practice.
Specifically, the lack of congruence among intelligence measures
(such as that identified in this study) may lead to misdiagnosis,
preventing some students from receiving adequate support
for their exceptional needs. Likewise, it is appropriate to
highlight the need to use different tests of fluid and crystallized
intelligence in the identification of high-ability students, always
taking into consideration the students’ cognitive developmental
stages.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
Discriminatory Value of the Measures
Identifying High-Ability Students and
Intellectual Results Differences of the
Students Detected
It is necessary to highlight that a reliable evaluation is the basis for
an early detection and tailored intervention, and that currently
one of the most important concerns regarding higher abilities is
that these students often do not receive recognition, and thus
appropriate intellectual stimulation, at least in Spain (Calero
and García-Martín, 2014). This can lead to a lack of interest,
frustration, and failure at school, as well as have a negative
effect on the development of self-worth and social acceptance
(Kroesbergen et al., 2016) or result in behavioral problems in
some cases. On the other hand, a false positive may push students
toward overly demanding and frustrating processes that may
exceed the limits of their capacity. A total of 31 students in
the current study presented an IQ equal or above 130 when
the different tests were used separately, which corresponds to
13.13% of the sample. This infers a clear over-estimation of
high-ability students, if the acknowledged distribution of IQ
in the general population is to be taken into account. When
convergence between any two tests was considered, only three
students were identified as being high-ability children, which
corresponds to only 1.27% of the total sample.
In terms of creativity, students in sixth grade showed higher
scores in this variable in comparison to third grade students. This
result suggests that creativity may increase as students progress
through the different stages of schooling, and draws attention to
the need for researchers to conduct more comprehensive studies
on what type of teaching methods favor or hinder creativity in the
classroom.
It is also worth noting some differences in the functioning of
the tests according to grade level. Regarding third grade students,
results suggest that the Factor “g” test may be less restrictive than
the other tests when it comes to detecting potentially higher-
ability students, whereas the TEA-1 may be the most liberal
in this sense, identifying the greatest number of higher-ability
students. However, the discriminating power of the tests in
the case of sixth grade students was different. Specifically, the
Factor “g” test and TEA-1 tests were the most and the least
restrictive tests, respectively. Again it seems that the tests that
measure fluid intelligence and those which measure crystallized
intelligence operate differently at different developmental stages
(see Figure 1).
With respect to the students’ intellectual variables, results
indicated that a high IQ is not necessarily accompanied by high
creativity, which has already been demonstrated in previous
research (Kim, 2005; Marugán et al., 2010; Guignard et al., 2016).
In the case of third grade students, 20 participants were identified
as high-ability children by at least one of the tests. However,
only two of them demonstrated high levels of creativity. Among
the sixth grade students, only six of the 11 who were identified
as high-ability students also displayed high levels of creativity.
Studies carried out with large samples of Spanish students, such as
that of Castejón et al. (2016), show how in classrooms, although
gifted students are equally categorized, not all of them show
7 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
FIGURE 1 | Results of the different measurements for groups with IQ higher and lower than 130 (depending on whether the IQ selection was made using g Factor,
Badyg or TEA-1).
the same cognitive-motivational profiles. In this way, there are
students who exhibit higher scores on creativity and lower scores
on general mental ability or self-regulation learning strategies
(the group called by these authors as “creative gifted”) and there
are student profiles that do not show special ability in this
variable; for example, students called “gifted achievers,” who show
high scores in self-regulation learning variables and academic
achievement, and lower scores in creativity; or students called
“cognitive gifted” who get high scores in general mental ability
only.
In summary, and as Heller (2004), Ziegler and Stoeger (2010),
and Wellisch and Brown (2012) have pointed out, the use of
different tests of intellectual ability in the identification of high-
ability students is necessary. Otherwise, this process may be
biased. Furthermore, including additional measures not directly
related to intellectual ability, such as creativity, would help
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
establish a more detailed profile of the students and thereby
assist in identifying their additional strengths and weaknesses.
This is even more important in countries such as Spain,
where most of the detection protocols available today, although
multidisciplinary, still use a single measure of intellectual ability
as a starting point to identify those students at a higher level of
ability (Hernández and Gutiérrez, 2014). In this sense, it would
be necessary to continue analysing the correspondence between
different assessment tests, as well as between different measures
of creativity, in order to better delimitate to what extent the tests
provide a coherent and comprehensive profile of the students’
intellectual abilities.
Finally, some limitations should be acknowledged in relation
to the present study. Firstly, the sample size was somewhat
limited and also geographically localized, which may pose some
constraints concerning generalization of the results. It would
8 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
be necessary to expand the study sample to include a large
number of gifted children and determine if the results obtained
on the lack of congruence between the tests are maintained.
In the current study, the percentage of students with scores
above 130 IQ points appears biased toward the distribution
or congruence between the measures. Secondly, future studies
may consider the benefits of including additional variables in
research of this kind, such as motivation, personality, learning
styles, socio-cultural conditions, and/or students’ affective-
emotional states. These additions to the methodology utilized
in the present study would undoubtedly enhance the results
of any future investigations of the multidimensional construct
widely known as “higher ability” (Reis and Renzulli, 2010;
Sternberg, 2010; Hernández and Gutiérrez, 2014). Finally,
although through different tests, the same construct (IQ) has
been evaluated. Thus, the possibility of an average regression
effect or profiles with cluster latent analysis, which is common
when evaluating students in a short period of time, has to
be considered. It would be interesting to extend the time
between evaluations in order to control for this effect in future
research.
REFERENCES
Baker, J. (2011). Stability of racial differences in gifted education: the case for
stereotype threat. Talent Dev. Excell. 3, 27–28.
Calero, M. D., García, M. B., Jiménez, M. I., Kazén, M., and Araque, A. (2007).
Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: findings from a research study.
Learn. Individ. Differ. 17, 328–343. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.012
Calero, M. D., and García-Martín, M. B. (2011). The Evaluation of Gifted Children:
When, Why and How? Available at: http://www.infocop.es/view_article.asp?id=
3304
Calero, M. D., and García-Martín, M. B. (2014). Temporal stability of IQ and
learning potential in gifted children: diagnostic implications. Anal. Psicol. 30,
512–521. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.2.163801
Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges. fifteen years of definitions
of giftedness in research. J. Adv. Acad. 24, 52–70. doi: 10.1177/1932202X124
72602
Castejón, J. L., Gilar, R., Miñano, P., and González, M. (2016). Latent class cluster
analysis in exploring different profiles of gifted and talented students. Learn.
Individ. Differ. 50, 166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.003
Cattell, R. B., and Cattell, A. K. S. (1994). Factor “g” manual. Scales 2 &3. Madrid:
TEA Ediciones.
Corbalán, F. J., Martínez, F., Donolo, D. S., Alonso, C., Tejerina, M., and Limiñana,
R. M. (2003). Creative Intelligence CREA, Manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Erwin, J. O., and Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the
underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education.
J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 30, 74–87. doi: 10.1177/0734282911428197
Ferrando, M., Ferrándiz, C., Prieto, M. D., Bermejo, M. R., and Sáinz, M. (2008).
Creativity in gifted & talented children. Int. J. Creat. Problem Solv. 18, 35–47.
Finney, S. J., and Di Stefano, C. (2006). “Non-normal and categorical data in
structural equation modeling,” in Structural Equation Modeling: A second
course, eds G. R. Hancock and R. O. Muller (Greenwich, CT: Information Age),
269–314.
Freeman, J. (2011). A wish for the gifted and talented. Talent Dev. Excell. 3, 57–58.
Guignard, J. H., Kermarrec, S., and Tordjman, S. (2016). Relationships between
intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted children. Learn. Individ.
Differ. 52, 209–215. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.006
Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychol. Sci. 46,
302–323.
Hernández, D., and Gutiérrez, M. (2014). The study of high intellectual ability in
Spain: analysis of the current situation. Rev. Educ. 364, 251–272. doi: 10.4438/
1988-592X-RE-2014-364-261
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
ETHICS STATEMENT
This study was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of University of Oviedo with written informed
consent from the parents of all participants. All parents gave
written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the University of Oviedo.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
EF, TG, and CR have participated in the design, analysis and
drafting of the paper. OA-G, and AV have participated in the
application of the measures and drafting of the paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been supported by a project of the Principality of
Asturias (FC-15-GRUPIN14-053).
Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., and Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship
between intelligence and creativity: new support for the threshold hypothesis
by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence 41, 212–221. doi: 10.
1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
Jeltova, I., and Grigorenko, E. (2005). “Systemic approaches to giftedness:
contributions of russian psychology,” in Conceptions of Giftedness, eds R. J.
Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
171–187.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis.
J. Second. Gifted Educ. 16, 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473
Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Hooidonk, M., Van Viersen, S., Middel-Lalleman,
M. M. N., and Reijnders, J. J. W. (2016). The psychological well-being of
early identified gifted children. Gifted Child Quart. 60, 16–30. doi: 10.1177/
0016986215609113
Lovett, B. J., and Lewandowski, L. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning
disabilities: who are they? J. Learn. Disabil. 39, 515–527. doi: 10.1177/
00222194060390060401
Lovett, B. J., and Sparks, R. (2011). The identification and performance of gifted
students with learning disability diagnoses: a quantitative synthesis. J. Learn.
Disabil. 46, 304–316. doi: 10.1177/0022219411421810
Marugán, M., Carbonero, M. A., Torres, M. H., and León, B. (2010). Analysis
of connections between creativity and high capacities. Electron. J. Res. Educ.
Psychol. 10, 1081–1098.
McGrew, K. S. (2005). “The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities,”
in Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, 2nd Edn,
eds D. P. Flanagan and P. L. Harrison (New York, NY: Guilford Press),
136–181.
Moon, T. R., and Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions
of giftedness. J. Educ. Gifted 31, 447–480. doi: 10.4219/jeg-
2008-793
Naglieri, J. A., and Ford, D. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted
minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted
Child Q. 47, 155–160. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700206
Pérez, L., and González, C. (2007). Differences in development and intellectual
variability among students with high capacity. Faisca 12, 106–117.
Peyre, H., Ramus, F., Melchior, M., Forhan, A., Heude, B., and Gauvrit, N. (2016).
Emotional, behavioral and social difficulties among high-IQ children during the
preschool period: results of the EDEN mother–child cohort. Person. Ind. Diff.
94, 366–371. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.014
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the indentification and assessment of
gifted students. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 30, 3–9. doi: 10.1177/0734282911428192
9 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239
Fernández et al.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). The tripartite model on high capacity and best practices in the
evaluation of the ablest. Rev. Educ. 368, 66–95. doi: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-
2015-368-293
Pierson, E. E., Kilmer, L. M., Rothlisberg, B. A., and McIntosh, D. E. (2012). Use of
brief intelligence tests in the identification of giftedness. J. Psychoeduc. Assess.
30, 10–24. doi: 10.1177/0734282911428193
Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional
development of gifted and talented students: good news and future possibilities.
Psychol. Schools 41, 119–130. doi: 10.1002/pits.10144
Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: the gifted and talented constitute
one single homogenous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the
person over time and experience. Gifted Child Q. 53, 233–235. doi: 10.1177/
0016986209346824
Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education?
An examination of current research. Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 308–317.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamination of definition. Phi
Delta Kappan 60, 180–184.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent
development for the 21st Century: a four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child
Q. 56, 150–159. doi: 10.1177/0016986212444901
Renzulli, J. S., and Gaesser, A. H. (2015). A multi criteria system for the
identification of high achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Rev. Educ.
368, 93–131. doi: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-290
Sabiston, C. M., O’Loughlin, E., Brunet, J., Chaiton, M., Low, N. C., Barnett, T.,
et al. (2013). Linking depression symptom trajectories in adolescence to physical
activity and team sports participation in young adults. Prev. Med. 56, 95–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.013
Sánchez-Sánchez, F., Santamaría, P., and Abad, F. J. (2015). Matrices. General
Intelligence Test. Madrid: TEA Ediciones S.A.
Silverman, L. K. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensation: how the gifted
cope with learning disabilities. Gifted Educ. Int. 25, 115–130. doi: 10.1177/
026142940902500203
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes:
New techniques for a new millennium. Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 327–336.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Identifying Gifted Children
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Thurstone, L. L., and Thurstone, T. H. (2005). Test of Educational Aptitudes.
Madrid: TEA Ediciones S.A.
Tourón, J., Peralta, F., and Repáraz, C. (1998). Intellectual Giftedness. Models,
Identification and Educational Strategies. Pamplona: EUNSA.
Tourón, J., Repáraz, C., and Peralta, F. (2006). Nominations of teachers
in identifying students of high intellectual capacity. Sobredotação 7,
7–25.
Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Spanish, 5th Edn.
Madrid: Pearson Education.
Wellisch, M., and Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and intervention
model for intellectually gifted children. J. Adv. Acad. 23, 145–167. doi: 10.1177/
1932202X12438877
Wet, C. F., and Gubbins, E. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally,
linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: a quantitative study.
Roeper Rev. 33, 97–108. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
Williams, J. R. (2008). Revising the declaration of Helsinki. World Med. J. 54,
120–125.
Yuste, C., Martínez, R., and Galve, J. L. (2005). Battery of Differential and General
Skills (BAD&G). Madrid: CEPE.
Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2010). How fine motor skills influence the
assessment of high abilities and underachievement in math. J. Educ. Gifted 34,
195–219.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2017 Fernández, García, Arias-Gundín, Vázquez and Rodríguez. This
is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
10 July 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1239